[ppml] IP-v6 Needs (RE: a modified proposal 2005-8)
Davis, Terry L
terry.l.davis at boeing.com
Fri Mar 17 11:57:29 EST 2006
Possibly but the current mobility schemes don't require that.
Being their own Autonomous System would probably help with service
provider handoffs; one of our challenges right now is that no one is yet
working on how the concepts of "Internet docking" really works for large
mobile platforms with one or more complete onboard networks.
From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme at multicasttech.com]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 8:46 AM
To: Davis, Terry L
Cc: Howard, W. Lee; ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] IP-v6 Needs (RE: a modified proposal 2005-8)
To extend your example at little, would you envision each Aircraft as
own Autonomous System ? And, if not, why not ?
On Mar 17, 2006, at 11:33 AM, Davis, Terry L wrote:
> My main point is that we cannot plan for an IP-v6 world using IP-v4
> templates. The key messages:
> 1) We MUST provider users (individuals/government/business) with
> stability. Getting new IP addresses, DNS names, and email addresses
> every time we either change providers or move will simply be
> unacceptable. Without this logical stability, every communication
> service (voice/email/etc) is unstable, industry-wide initiatives (i.e.
> like power control) are not possible, and even gains the financial
> institutions hope to make with EFT systems become limited (i.e.
> the fun of resetting all your automatic billings/payments email
> addresses last time you changed service providers?). I know this
> may be
> more an IETF issue but I'm there next week.
> 2) Assuming that any users (individuals/government/business) will
> have a
> single service provider is completely unrealistic. (Much of point in
> the chain below) We need to understand impacts of this to IP-v6
> architectures and routing.
> (I'm already dealing with this reality in the aviation industry as we
> plan for IP-v6. The aircraft MUST be able to join to many different
> service provider networks as it moves around the world; we have
> that fly there aircraft literally around the world in a bit over a
> The aircraft WILL most of the time have simultaneous links to multiple
> service providers. An aircraft will probably have at least three
> separate networks onboard: air traffic control, airline or
> operator, and
> in-flight passenger services/entertainment.)
> 3) Besides government, whole industries will want address blocks that
> they manage as closed network; these may be at the regional, national,
> or global level. Power, shipping, and aviation are some that will
> almost certainly require this.
> 4) We might as well come to terms with the idea that some of these
> be essentially irrevocable. Can anyone envision revoking the IP
> of an aircraft that is set up in air traffic control systems around
> I doubt that I can make the ARIN meeting in Montreal but I will try.
> Take care
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard, W. Lee [mailto:Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 7:44 AM
> To: Davis, Terry L
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] a modified proposal 2005-8
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Davis, Terry L [mailto:terry.l.davis at boeing.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 5:56 PM
>> To: Howard, W. Lee
>> Cc: ppml at arin.net; bookeym at pachenalight.com
>> Subject: RE: [ppml] a modified proposal 2005-8
>> Responses below.
>> (All, apologies for the formatting. My responses are between the +
> That does make it challenging to respond. In my responses below,
> I'm trying to point out that this is where we set IP address
> allocation policies, and in order for your participation to be
> effective, you need to describe what policy you would like to see.
>> Take care
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Howard, W. Lee [mailto:Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:45 PM
>> To: Davis, Terry L
>> Cc: ppml at arin.net; bookeym at pachenalight.com
>> Subject: RE: [ppml] a modified proposal 2005-8
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>>> Behalf Of Davis, Terry L
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:29 PM
>>> To: Houle, Joseph D (Joe), CMO
>>> Cc: ppml at arin.net; bookeym at pachenalight.com
>>> Subject: Re: [ppml] a modified proposal 2005-8
>>> Nope, you read it correctly!
>>> The power company will require your electrical systems to
>> be on their
>>> PLC networks in order to control your electrical systems; it
>>> would make
>>> a completely unworkable control and routing system for the electric
>>> company to try to map the homeowners ISP assigned networks to
>>> your home load controller.
>> Why? They have to have a table mapping (IP) address to
>> (home) address,
>> so why does it matter if the IP address is theirs?
>> If they don't go directly to the home, they will constantly be:
>> - Unable to connect due home firewall/network changes
>> - Have to deal with an IP churn rate per home that will force them to
>> change approaching 20% of their entries annually because
>> someone either
>> moves or change service providers.
>> - Will have to require their customers ALSO get an ISP to get load
>> control service.
> I understand 1 and 3, but I don't follow your middle point. You
> suggested government assignment, either to a physical address, in
> which case there's no churn, or to an owner, in which case the
> churn would happen anyway due to moves, regardless of whether the
> address was assigned by utility or government.
>>> You will need to interface to their control center somehow
>> to set your
>>> home systems/load controllers and that could be via any available
>>> networks but the actual controls will need to come in over their
>> I'm trying to understand your position: The power company needs to
>> build its own IP network in order to manage power systems at each
>> home; their IP address assignments will be from their aggregatable
>>> Likewise government would like to give each home a permanent
>>> subnet from
>>> "its addresses" for their use especially including advanced
>>> EMS services
>>> such that they can handle both 911 and direct fire alarms.
>> I wouldn't
>>> be surprised if in a couple decades, your home City/County has your
>>> properties IP address on your deed.
>> I would be surprised. IP addresses are not property, and are not
>> transferable in that sense.
>> We will see how it develops. My guess is that EMS will win although
>> with IP-v6 they could certainly allocate the address portion of the
>> space themselves to the property permanently and allow the network
>> portion to change.
> EMS will win what? I didn't know there was a contest.
> IP addresses are not property. They are identifying numbers, which
> are allocated or assigned based on policies created by the public
> and administered by the Regional Internet Registries, such as ARIN.
> They are fungible, and cannot be owned, bought or sold.
>>> I already have two ISP's serving my home; cable and DSL
>> both and will
>>> probably add an EVDO link with a third. In my case, because of the
>>> incredibly poor physical plant in my area, neither are very
>>> Try this list, you can validate it with some of the folks working
>>> community networking:
>>> - Internet Service Provider
>>> - Entertainment Service Provider
>>> - Home Application Service Provider
>>> - Government Services
>>> - Communication Service Provider
>>> - Power Provider
>>> - Metering Provider
>>> - EMS (911 and fire alarm)
>>> - Security Service Provider
>>> None of these will be a simple single IP address either as most will
>>> have multiple controls or sensors serving your home.
>> Would a /64 be sufficient for each, do you think? Especially if
>> they're not from a single aggregate block, this would be important
>> to understand.
>> I would certainly think so.
>>> And no your ISP will NOT work as the sole provider of my home IP's!
>>> I'll personally fight that on capital hill!
>> This is the place to fight for that, not Capitol Hill.
>> I'd like to think so but history seems to say otherwise.
> Please explain.
>>> We fought for the right not
>>> to be forced to switch phone numbers when we move and I'm on
>>> my 4th (or
>>> 5th) ISP serving my home in the last ten years. (AT&T, Earthlink,
>>> Qwest, MSN, Speakeasy, and Comcast, ok 6th) All of which
>> provided me
>>> with new IP's and email addresses which had no relation to any my
>>> previous ones so I had to contact everyone I emailed with and
>>> have them
>>> update my email address. Bill paying services make this even
>>> worse! It
>>> takes months to get them all updated; one-at-a-time.
>> Just to make sure I understand your position:
>> You'd rather have nine provider aggregated addresses
>> (counting networks
>> above) than one (PI or PA) address?
>> I think that is what will happen. Whether I care or not
>> depends on how
>> well they can hide the details. Regardless which option
>> wins, we cannot
>> expect the average homeowner to be able to deal IP networking
>> detail at this level.
> What do you want to have happen?
> Can you explain how one plan or another affects homeowners?
>> There are some differences here. Your choice of local phone carriers
>> has been extremely limited. The local carrier has physical
>> to your house; now the cable company and power company also have
>> facilities. An ISP provides a service using those facilities. They
>> may provide multiple services, including routing (pretty
>> essential, and
>> requiring aggregatable addressing) and maybe also email, but
>> these are
>> disjoint: there's no reason your Internet access provider has
>> to be your
>> email provider.
>> Agreed but what we have to do is figure out how to provide
>> the homeowner
>> at stable set of logical addresses (email/web/voice/etc) that
>> map their
>> physical ones. Otherwise I am certain that local government will win
> Again, win what?
> Since ARIN only administers IP addresses, can we discuss those
> Is it necessary for email address, web site, and phone number
> to be permanently mapped to an IP address? Are no dynamic
> mappings possible which might make the IP address transparent
> to the homeowner?
>>> This is exactly why I would prefer a local government
>> provided IP that
>>> was associated with my home address that didn't change
>> until I moved!
>> I must have misunderstood your previous points then. There are a lot
>> of points to take away from this sentence:
>> 1. "Local" government meaning city, county, state, federal, or some
>> kind of regional Internet registry?
>> The first four although the fifth could work.
> In order to derive a policy, we need more detail. What do you
>> 2. You want a government authority to replace the current
>> system of IP
>> address allocation? Can you outline the ways in which this
>> is superior
>> to the current system?
>> NO, but that is what I will probably get. The reason is simple; they
>> can provide me with a stable set of logical relationships
>> that map to my
>> physical home. A present this is simply not possible for a service
>> provider to do.
> Then what do you want?
>> 3. How would IP addresses be "associated with my home address"?
>> Do you envision embedding physical address information in the IP
>> address, like GPS coordinates, or a database owned and operated by
>> I think that either GPS or a government DB is most likely.
> Is that what you want?
> Can you provide a way of embedding GPS coordinates into IPv6
> Does it scale?
> Can you describe such a government database? Maintainer, schema,
> How would either of these be routed?
>> 4. How would routing work? Would every network have to carry a
>> Separate route for every home? Or do you mean that local
>> should take over all Internet access?
>> In the scenario I envision occurring, local government just becomes
>> another "service provider" and each of the home service providers
>> their own routing.
> I'm not quite sure I followed that. The local government becomes the
> Internet access provider? Or do they provide some other service?
> If the government assigns an address to be used by all of the other
> providers, there are significant routing implications. If there's
> any competition, then addresses cannot be aggregated, and a separate
> routing entry will have to be maintained for each address. Can you
> describe how that would scale, given even optimistic technology
> projections? If there's no competition, then we have nine completely
> separate networks, which do not overlap anywhere and cannot inter-
> connect. Also, a different form of government and economy.
>>> And I certainly don't want to worry that if I change ISP,
>> 911 or fire
>>> won't be able to find me. Likewise I want to keep my phone
>>> number when
>>> I move and my email even if I have to change service providers.
>>> Sorry but my view of the future world has little to do with today's!
>> That's fair to say. I don't quite understand whether you favor
>> competition, monopolization, or nationalization. I'm hoping you can
>> clarify how routing might work in your vision. I definitely advise
>> you to take advantage of one of the many companies providing free
>> email, so that you don't have to go through the pain of updating your
>> contacts next time you switch ISPs. Or you can set up your own mail
>> server, of course.
>> I'm in favor of a solution that provides the home owner or individual
>> with a set of "stable" logical relationships. I certainly won't go
>> through a "free email provider" as I need them to both be
>> around for the
>> long term and to be responsible. As an example, I keep paying MSN
>> monthly even though I have no used them as an ISP for over five
>> this is simply to provide my wife a stable email for a large
>> group she works with. It is that important!
> If I have correctly interpreted your arguments, you advocate
> government control of networks and centralized, rigidly hierarchical
> networks which map exactly to geography. You also want those networks
> to map exactly to individuals, which seems to be a conflict.
> Perhaps smooth dynamic mappings between identifiers would require
> fewer fundamental changes to TCP/IP.
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
More information about the ARIN-PPML